Philip Sullivan v Andrew Griffin

Philip Sullivan brought an action against Andrew Griffin in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking damages for defamation. The defamation arose from publications made by Griffin on the Internet. This was not the first time the two had clashed in the courts over similar allegations. Griffin sought to have the action dismissed on the basis that the proceedings were in respect of the same or like matter as a previous action. The court was required to determine whether the two actions were in respect of the same or like matter, and whether the mode of communication constituted a different matter within the meaning of section 4 of the Defamation Act 2005.

The court found that the question of whether the two matters were in respect of the same or like matter was a question of fact and degree. The court held that the definition of "matter" in section 4 of the Defamation Act 2005 incorporated the mode of communication. This meant that even if the defamatory matter was the same, the mode of communication could be different and therefore the matters could be different. The court held that in this case, the matters were not in respect of the same or like matter, as the mode of communication was different. The court found that the publications on the Internet were a different matter from the publications in the previous action.

The court dismissed the application for the action to be stayed. The court found that the defamatory publications on the Internet were a different matter from the publications in the previous action, and that the matters were not in respect of the same or like matter. The court found that the mode of communication was a relevant factor in determining whether the matters were the same or like, and that the Internet publications were a different matter. The court held that the application for the action to be stayed was dismissed.